Comments on: Griffith Review goes “Forward from the Summit”

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:34:34 +0000

Surely that’s good! Surely that’s the sort of civil society dialogue we should be encouraging not dissing?

No I quite like the Griffith Review probably because it’s nice that a high status journal is put out by my Uni. I’m just a little tired of the solemnity with which the Jabberfest is treated. The Griffith Review can and has considered many of the issues that the Jabberfest purported to resolve long before we had it.
>
I also think considering anecdotes about certain notions apparently inserted into the discussion that it may have been a political ploy and I just don’t like the concept of the ‘best’ being picked by government decree. The real best don’t need a rubber stamp. Also the Jabberfest was dominated by pro-Kevvie types. I’m not dissing Kevvie in particular but I fear that if he continues John Howard’s practise of excluding people who differ ideologically we’re going to end up with the bitter divide that categorizes American politics.
>
But whatever I’ll stop dissing the Jabberfest okay –

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:04:17 +0000

The point about timing is a good one, Maggie.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:01:36 +0000

While I am not disagreeing that an outbreak of dialogue is a good thing, I still feel that the current models are elitist. Who is available to participate on a weekday work afternoon except those with complete discretion about their working hours or those outside of the workforce. I am not saying that these people have nothing to contribute but frankly they are the minority and most of us head down in the “factory” have found the whole thing irrelevant. I must say I was pretty deflated by the “new ideas” from the National Summit, I think we have heard all the proposals before and its still dicking around the edges when we need radical changes to our society if we are to survive the next 50 years.

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:30:54 +0000

Adrien, while you may dismiss the “Jabberfest” with some degree of justification, what’s to object to in a private organisation (in this case the Griffith Review) trying to use it as a starting point for further discussion and involving people outside the hermetic circle of the anointed delegates? Surely that’s good! Surely that’s the sort of civil society dialogue we should be encouraging not dissing?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:26:29 +0000

Sorry Kim I don’t have anything positive to say. But here’s a little constructive criticism, Eric Hobsbawm that right-wing fascist once wrote that left-wing cricles have a tendency to become endless debating societies. Monty Python’s Life of Brian which I reckon is actually having a go at the Left had a delicious scene in which the JPF sat around a table crapping on and on about how they were the party of action and not just talk.
>
The Jabberfest of the Chosen Kilo has not as far as I’ve seen produced one idea that is new, useful and practical. I can understand that those to whom the term ‘latte left’ applies (and this includes myself somewhat) are eager to turn around the ‘damage’ wrought by Mr Howard’s government. But I think it’s both naff and unconstructive to look at it that way.
>
In the past three decades this country has been thru massive change culturally and economically. When Howard got elected it was as a reaction to both. Now whilst I don’t sympathize with people who want the good old Protected ‘Straya: Prime Colony of the Wandering Western Viewpoint with its pride in philistinism, its love of mediocrity, its casual mysigony and its xenophobic suspicions back, I have to say that after change there will be a reaction. Howard was the avatar of such.
>
Rather than look at it thru the prism of emotional disgust with what he represents I tend to judge it as indicative of progress. It’s when staunch conservatives accept change that one knows that that change has been affected. Howard was an outspoken xenophobe back in the day. He railed against Asian immigration on the basis that our culture would be destabilised. As Prime Minister he was forced to concede that he was in favour of people coming from everywhere as long as the adhered to certain values.
>
Now whilst we may be suspicious of these ‘values’ it is generally agreed that values compatible to democracy are desirable. I felt that when Howard articulated this latest spin on multicultural policy (in which he tried to define multiculturalism purely in terms of extreme cultural relativism) the Left fell into a trap he’d laid for them and succeeded in making him look like a repository of Reason. The better play would’ve been to join the debate, say: yes democratic values are important and articulate what they are.
>
But they cried ‘racist’ when he wasn’t being racist. Bad play. The thing was when Howard said ‘from everywhere’ he was admitting an important defeat. He had realised that Australia is no longer Neo England.
>
The Jabberfest was also a bad play. Huge groups of people do nothing but articulate broad sentiment. The Left’s love of the crowd, the march, the rally, the slogan and the bloody megaphone would do well to become historical curiosities: they are dull and create nothing.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:06:34 +0000

Cynicism is sooooooooooooooo boring.

Get off your bums and say something positive for once, you bunch of whiners!

By: CountingCats

CountingCats — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:32:41 +0000

Wot is this about Australias goals? You talking about the summiteers wish list?

Sigh. This conference formed no part of the governments election manifesto and none of the delegates represented anyone other than themselves – none of the proposals put forward by the conference have any political legitimacy, and the government has no mandate to implement a single one.

Countries don’t have goals. Governments might, but countries? No.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:31:45 +0000

Yes this is extremely significant. It tells us an awful lot. What it tells us is that Jabberfests are living multicellular life forms that reproduce (asexually) by spewing many spores that grow into their very own Jabberfests.
>
The Judean People’s Front will rise once more to former glory and Reg will, no doubt, draft a motion.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:29:49 +0000

Danny, I think you’ve got the wrong George Williams.

The Griffith panelist is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at UNSW:

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/staff/WilliamsG/

By: danny

danny — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:22:46 +0000

Thanks Mark for notice.

‘Must say, I find it a bit disturbing that an otherwise resepectable outfit like GU is indulging in tabloid tactics by including some racy Cory/Chopper/Schapelle-ilk “talent” on the playbill.

Then again, perhaps…rehabilitating the father of Carl Williams the gangland killer, himself convicted as trafficker of half mill worth of amphetamines, is a brilliant, albeit edgy, big-hearted counter to the otherwise small-minded anti-even-alcopops wowserism attaching to the 2020 brand.

Clearly anything goes on the australian spoken word stage these days:

from http://www.yourgigs.com.au/artist/?21314,

Genre: Comedy/Spoken word
Artist Info for Roger Rogerson

“Discraced former police officer who was infamously involved in the shooting of drug runner Warren LaFranchi and involved with Sydney Criminal Arthur ‘Neddy’ Smith. Most recently involved in spoken word performances.”
He was doing cd launches before that at the Troubadour in The Valley,

Ah queensland, ironic one day, slapstick the rest. Where else could a Rudd arise?

By: ansteybranchopolous

ansteybranchopolous — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:30:26 +0000

The minnions are coming to spead the word. What is the word? Bugger al different so far. Can someone get Rudd to get out of Iraq NOW.